MP52-01 ANALYZING OUTCOMES OF THE <i>ADJUSTABLE TRANSOBTURATOR MALE SYSTEM (ATOMS)</i> FOR POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE: RESULTS OF A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP52-01 ANALYZING OUTCOMES OF THE ADJUSTABLE TRANSOBTURATOR MALE SYSTEM (ATOMS) FOR POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE: RESULTS OF A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY Samuel Farag, Joanie Pelletier, Salima Ismail, and Le Mai Tu Samuel FaragSamuel Farag More articles by this author , Joanie PelletierJoanie Pelletier More articles by this author , Salima IsmailSalima Ismail More articles by this author , and Le Mai TuLe Mai Tu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002627.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The ATOMS has recently gained popularity in the post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) scene, touting advantages such as surgical simplicity and post-operative adjustability. The present study explores the device as a potential treatment option for PPI. Primary outcome was dryness rate, 24-hour pad-count change compared to baseline and results from the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire. Secondary outcome was the frequency of postoperative adverse events. METHODS: A retrospective medical record study was conducted on 91 patients who underwent ATOMS implantation between February 2016 and September 2020 at our institution. Preoperative incontinence severity was defined as <2 pads per day (PPD), 2-4 PPD, and >4 PPD with regards to 24-h pad-count or/and <200g, 200-400g and >400g regarding 24-h pad-test (24h-PT) to classify mild, moderate, and severe incontinence, respectively. Dryness was defined as requiring 0 or 1 PPD postoperatively. Patients considered “improved” or “very much improved” were defined as having a diminution of PPD of ≥ 50% or ≥ 75%, respectively. Positive patient satisfaction was defined by “Much better”, and “Very much better” PGI-I results. RESULTS: Out of the 91 patients identified, 65 were included in the study (26 were excluded due to a follow-up <12 months). Mean patient age was 71 years, with a mean follow-up of 29.9 months (SE 1.8; range 12-67). Median preoperative PPD and 24h-PT were 4 (IQR 6-3; range 1-10) and 358 g (IQR 607-256; range 34-1592) respectively, classifying most patients as moderate (n=24; 36.9%) or severe (n=40; 61.5%) incontinence. Median PPD at final follow-up was 1.0 (IQR 2-0; range 0-5; p < 0.001). 59 (90.7%) patients required adjustment postoperatively, with a mean of 2.4 adjustments (SE 0.25; range 1-8) and a mean total instilled volume of 14.8mL (SE 0.76; range 6-31). Overall improvement was noted in 56 (86.2%) patients, with 43 (76.7%) being “very much improved” and 42 (75.0%) being dry. Patient satisfaction rate was 87.7% (n=57). 8 (12.3%) patients experienced complications of any Clavien-Dindo grade, of which 4 were a grade III due to 1 device migration (1.5%), and 3 explantations due to leakage (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study vouches ATOMS as a safe and effective device in the treatment of PPI. More robust studies may allow integration of the ATOMS device among treatments options in North American urological practices. Source of Funding: Funding was acquired from the research budget of the Urology Department at Université de Sherbrooke © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e886 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Samuel Farag More articles by this author Joanie Pelletier More articles by this author Salima Ismail More articles by this author Le Mai Tu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».